Facts of the case
Bhagat and Chhaju Ram are sons of the late Mast Ram. Mast Ram executed a Will on 16.05.1973, in favour of Respondent 3, his widow, Muni Devi, appointing her as the sole heir of his property. He also elaborated that the appellants have been living away from the Testator (the person who made the Will) for 26-27 years. The Will was registered in accordance with law on 21.05.1973, with two attesting witnesses, before the Registrar of Deeds. However, when the registrar was reading out the contents of the Will, Mast Ram admitted the execution of the Will but made an oral statement to the Registrar which is contradictory from the contents of the Will. Another point of contention was that the second attesting witness was the Registrar of Deeds.
Issue before the court
- Whether the formalities attached to the execution of a Will need to be carried out in relation to a codicil also, and if so, whether a codicil is also required to be proved in the same manner as a Will ?
- Whether a Registrar of Deeds can also be an attesting witness ?
- Whether registration of a Will or codicil (Amendment of Will) dispenses with the need of proving the execution and attestation of the Will in the manner required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ?
Judgement
It was held that the same rules of execution are applicable to a codicil (amendment of Will) to a Will to which the codicil relates, so the evidence required in proving the execution of a codicil must satisfy the same requirements as that required in proving execution of a Will. Although Sec 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 does not specifically speak of codicils, the applicability is not confined to execution of Wills only. A codicil is an instrument made in relation to a Will and by fiction of law, it forms a part of the Will. A Registrar was also held to be a valid witness as long as the registrar enters the witness box and the court is satisfied with their statements made.